A VISHWANATH Vs. P JAYA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification was issued to appoint distributor for LPG in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 2-4-2002 and Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District, was one of such centre. The appellant as well as 4th respondent in W.P. No.22011 of 2004 applied for distributorship. Both of them satisfied the eligibility criteria. But the appellant, in order to, conduct business of distributorship, included with him two other partners. They were co-applicants. Eligible candidates were called for interview. The appellant along with partners as well as 4th respondent in W.P. No.22011 of 2004 were called for interview; and on 24-11-2003, the respondents short-listed the candidates. The name of the appellant was shown on the top with 52% of marks; whereas the name of the 4th respondent in W.P. No.22011 of 2004 was shown at serial No.2 with 51 % of marks and the name of the 3rd applicant was shown at serial No.3 with 50% marks. Accordingly, the appellant was short-listed as the candidate. This action of the respondents in short-listing the appellant was questioned by the 4th respondent by filing W.P. No.25199 of 2003. The 4th respondent alleged in the writ petition that appellant had joined the other two persons as partners and, therefore, while preparing the merit list, respondent Nos.1 to 3 had not followed the practice, which hitherto has been followed by the department and that when application is by the partners, average or mean marks of the partners would be the final marks obtained by the partnership. In not following this practice, action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 was challenged by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and irrational.

(2.) The writ petition was contested by the appellant herein as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their counter affidavit stated that as per the prevailing practice and procedure followed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the marks secured by all the partners should have been taken into consideration for arriving at the average or mean and simultaneously they took a plea thai the manual of instructions does not manifest the same and it only indicates that all the partners shall have to fulfill the eligibility criteria. Appellant also filed counter affidavit, but nowhere challenged the practice, which was being followed by the respondents 1 to 3 hitherto in drawing average or mean of the marks secured by the partners together.

(3.) Learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the W.P. No.25199 of 2003 filed by the 4th respondent on the ground that once there was a certain practice being followed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the deviation from the said practice necessarily had resulted in the injustice and, therefore, the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has to be termed as arbitrary, irrational and illegal and consequently directed the 1 st respondent to place the matter before the Selection Committee for preparation of merit list in accordance with the accepted practice and further directed that on preparation of the merit list, respondents can proceed with the selection in accordance with law. Accordingly, the 4th respondent was selected and on 11 -6-2004, a letter of intent was issued.